Poetry and Ordinary Language

Dear Colleagues,

Poetry is a creation of ordinary words put to extraordinary use. How do we understand poetry’s power to defamiliarize ordinary language and render it anew, as well as the world it is entangled with? And what does the philosophy of ordinary language have to contribute to our understanding of this question? [1] And, furthermore, could poetry itself be understood as a philosophy of ordinary language, hence a philosophy of what philosophers call the lifeworld? Such questions are motivated by the appearance, in recent decades, of a series of books that attempt to straddle the two sides of what Plato in The Republic referred to as “an ancient quarrel between [poetry] and philosophy”. [2] These are, in order of publication: Stanley Cavell’s In Quest of the Ordinary (1988), Marjorie Perloff’s Wittgenstein’s Ladder: Poetic Language and the Strangeness of the Ordinary (1996), and Toril Moi’s Revolution of the Ordinary: Literary Studies After Wittgenstein, Austin and Cavell (2017). A common feature of all three volumes is an invocation of the thought of Ludwig Wittgenstein—arguably the most influential and, we might say, the most artistic philosopher of the twentieth century [3]—as making available a space in which the question of the relation of poetry and philosophy can be most fruitfully explored.

Of particular interest for the present Special Issue is Wittgenstein’s remark:

I believe to have summed up my attitude towards philosophy in that I said: one should really only create philosophy poetically. That, it seems to me, should reveal the extent to which my thinking belongs to the present, the future or the past. For with that I have also revealed myself as someone who cannot quite do what he would like to be able to do. [4] [italics added]

The crucial sentence is “Philosophie dürtfe man eigentlich nur dichten.” How should we interpret that in context? Majorie Perloff, a native German speaker, writes,

Wittgenstein’s proposition, as I have noted elsewhere (Perloff 2004, 53 n. 12) is all but untranslatable, because there is no precise English equivalent of the German verb dichten—a verb that means to create poetry but also, in the wider sense, to produce something fictional, as in Goethe’s Dichtung und Wahrheit, where fiction is opposed to truth. My own earlier translation: “Philosophy ought really to be written as a form of poetry” (Perloff 1996, xviii and passim) is not quite accurate, since there is no reference to form of writing here. Peter Winch, whose first edition of CV [Culture and Value] renders Wittgenstein’s sentence as “Philosophy ought really to be written only as a poetic composition,” revises it for the 1998 edition to read “Really one should write philosophy only as one writes a poem.” The word “poem” is misleading—Wittgenstein did not, after all, write poems—and perhaps the most accurate translation is David Schalkwyk’s: “Philosophy should be written only as one would write poetry” (2004, 56). Or, to be even more colloquial, one can follow David Antin’s “One should really only do philosophy as poetry” (1998, 161). [5]

Even after taking into account this sensitivity to the matter of translation, we are left with the question: How is philosophy to be written poetically, or only as poetry? [6] One suggestion is that philosophy, as Wittgentein practices it, can aspire to a form of poetry—say, in its the use of assertoric forms of language for non-assertoric (non-informational, non-factual) purposes. Another intriguing possibility is that poetry can be a form of philosophy—where philosophy is, as in Wittgenstein, a non-doctrinal activity. Both directions of response will be explored in this Special Issue of the journal.

In his interpretation of Wittgenstein, Stanley Cavell elaborates what Wittgenstein calls “the everyday” or “the ordinary” as ordinary language understood in terms of the everyday criteria we unselfconsciously use to apply concepts to the world in linguistic practice. [7] Wittgenstein distinguishes language that is doing “work” —that is, language that is used within “language-games”—from language that is “on holiday”. [8] But the philosophical attempt to understand language faces significant obstacles. He remarks,

A main source of our failure to understand is that we do not command a clear view of the use of our words.—Our grammar is lacking in this sort of perspicuity. [9] We are not at all prepared for the task of describing the use of the word e.g., “to think”. [10]

Two ideas of ordinary language are present here: 1) that we are unaware of how ordinary language operates—we have no rulebook of correct use or catalogue of our criteria for concepts of ‘objects’. We might add that what native speakers do have is more a kind of know-how than theoretical knowledge of language; 2) and ordinary language is not something fixed but a complex and creative flux of the use we make of ordinary words in specific contexts in second-personal space, i.e., the space of person-to-person communication.

In Wittgenstein’s view, philosophy attempts to explain language-in-general when it should rest content to describe it, on occasion to occasion, that is, describe the logic of language in practice—not in terms of general rules or conventions but by keeping track of its shifting significances in our everyday practices of using it. Poetry’s creations made of ordinary words call attention to their creative power and to the worldly background against which making meaning in language is possible—the taken-for-granted, the obvious, a sense of the way things normally happen or do not happen. Even if it invokes magic, myth, and fantasy poetry maintains its grip of reality. [11]

In this Special Issue exploring the relationship between poetry and ordinary language, we have invited philosophers from diverse backgrounds, as well as poets who are also philosophers of poetry as well as theorists of creative writing. Each approaches the question of the relation of poetry to ordinary language in a unique way. What poetry is and what ordinary language is—as well as what the ordinary world presupposed and pictured in ordinary language is—are all in question in these papers. Since I want to let each contributor speak for themselves, I will only provide the barest sketch of the contributions.

Sophie Grace Chappell has two contributions: one a new English translation of four of Horaces’s Odes, which are an attempt to do philosophy in poetry. Another is a paper on the Oedipus Complex and the way in which Oedipus is resistant to the extraordinary in Sophocles’s Oedipus Tyrannus. Julian Lamb applies the ordinary language philosopher J. L. Austin’s notion of performative utterance to a passage from Shaakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet. Justin Clemens gives a close reading of a few lines of John Milton’s Lycidas concerning poetry and the ordinary. Max Deutscher composes a response to Paul Celan’s speeches about poetry. Paul Magee’s paper compares innovation in ordinary language with innovation in poetry and poetry criticism. Lucy Van writes about the beginning of a poem and its relation to the extraordinary matter of quotation, especially where the quoted lines are from a previous poem. David Macarthur discusses Wittgenstein’s wish to write philosophy poetically, giving a close reading of Czeslaw Milosz’s Realism, in which “realism” is understood as an attitude to the ordinary in contrast to, and contesting, “realism” as a metaphysical or epistemological doctrine. David Musgrave explores the difference between what is said and what is shown in the poetry of W. H. Auden and Kenneth Goldsmith, pursuing the latter’s practice with a ‘found poem’ in a versification of G. E. Moore’s philosophical attempt to defend common sense against the skeptic.

References

[1] I am using the expression “philosophy of ordinary language” to refer to both ordinary language philosophy, of which Austin is an influential proponent, and the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, who said “

[2] Plato, The Republic, in Plato: The Complete Words ed. John M. Cooper. (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1997), Book X, 607b.

[3] Rudolph Carnap writes, “His point of view and his attitude toward people and problems… were much more similar to those of a creative artist than to those of a scientist; one might almost say similar to those of a religious prophet or a seer.” Quoted in Ray Monk, The Duty of Genius. (London: Penguin, 1990), 244.

[4] “Ich glaube meine Stellung zur Philosophie dadurch zusammengefaßt zu haben, indem ich sagte: Philosophie dürtfe man eigentlich nur dichten. Daraus muß sich, sicht scheint mir, ergeben, wie weit mein Denken der Gegenwart, Zukunft, oder der Vergangeneheit angehört. Denn ich habe mich damit auch als einen bekannt, der micht ganz kann was er zu können wünscht.” Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, revised ed. (Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1998), 28. I want to thank Carl Godfrey for this translation.

[5] Marjorie Perloff, “Writing Philosophy as Poetry: Literary Form in Wittgenstein,” The Oxford Handbook of Wittgenstein, ed. Oscari Kuusela and Marie McGinn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 11. References to papers by Schalkwyks and Antin can be found in Perloff’s article.

[6] Marjorie Perloff writes, “But how the two are related, how philosophy is to be written only as poetry: this remains a puzzle, not just for Wittgenstein’s reader, but for the philosopher himself.” Ibid., 2.

[7] Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations 4^th ed. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, P. Hacker & J. Schulte (Oxford: Blackwell, 2009), §19.

Stanley Cavell, The Claim of Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979).

[8] Wittgenstein, Investigations, §132, §7, §38.

[9] Ibid., §122.

[10] Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zettel, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell, 1967, §111.

[11] See Cora Diamond, The Realistic Spirit (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991), 39.

Dr. David Macarthur
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Philosophies is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• poetry
• philosophy
• Plato